In article >, "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>-- [someone else] wrote:

[ Very big snip of lots of interesting stuff. ]

>> The common pop-conception that ten is basic to human is often accepted
>> without consideration by those who do not have to lead, but merely follow
>> and hold onto a technical touchstone. There is no one sytem that is better
>> than another for all things - thus mankind has many systems of numbers.
>
>Sure they do. But ease of utility has made base 10 far and away the
>most common. Look at metric, look at currencies, look at
>classification systems from libraries to factory inventory.
>
>As for it's being "basic to human," I don't thinks anyone has said
>that. Merely that it's easier to calculate with it.

G'day Bob,

I'm curious about this -- are you sure there's something intrinsically
"easy" about base 10; or is it just that it's been drummed into us
since birth almost?

I mean, wouldn't arithmetic be equally "easy" in octal, for example?
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,20,21,22,... etc.
(Bearing in mind that the actual symbols used don't *have* to be our
familiar 1's, 2's, 3's ... )

Incidentally, some time ago I stumbled on a very interesting outline
of the development of standards of measurement in the US. If I can
rediscover the link, I'll post it -- but so far my memory is not up to
the task when confronted with gigabytes of "information" and thousands
of "favo[u]rites". 8-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID